6 thoughts on “Crete mystery croc killed by cold”

Yes, a ‘cold snap’, ‘light dusting of snow”freak snow storm’ ‘green electricity.'( as in made without generating CO2…the gas that makes things green. All words to deceive the populace. George Orwell would be so proud to see that what he wrote about in 1936 has become a fixture of modern life.

Yes, because its a good news, man bites dog story, but not for the Croc, who was probably a pet that got too large, and cold weather reporting goes against their environmental conditioning that warming is bad, and everybody wants a day off work in the UK due to a couple of inches of wet snow. The fish in the lake might get a little bigger now.
The fact still remains Sun spot recording isn’t comparing like with like, particularly when modern optics can see a pimple on the back of a fly at a hundred yards. Every blemish is recorded as a major Sun Spot, when previous solar minimums (Dalton) spots were recorded with 40 MM optics. Current Solar science is hide bound with the notion that the Sun’s TSI output is static and only varies 1%, they omit that EUV output varies by as much as 16% and is dependent large Sun Spots and the phage area around them to emit it and certainly the crackpot tree ring hockey stick graphs discount it entirely.

One of the biggest lies of climate science is the TSI and the claim it is approximately a constant.

“It has been shown to vary historically in the past 400 years over a range of less than 0.2 percent.”

How they managed this calculation is beyond anyone – perhaps they have a time machine ?

But that is irrelevant !

What is important to Earth’s climate is the solar radiation reaching Earth and how much enters the atmosphere reaching the surface.

And over a year the variation in the solar irradiance at TOA varies by an extraordinary 6.9% which is a change of 1367 x 6.9/100 or 94.3 Watts per square metre simply due to orbital parameters.

“The actual direct solar irradiance at the top of the atmosphere fluctuates by about 6.9% during a year (from 1.412 kW/m² in early January to 1.321 kW/m² in early July) due to the Earth’s varying distance from the Sun..”.

Factor in cloudiness and this figure varies even more wildly and unpredictably.

Yet, according to climate science devastation is certain from a claimed CO2 “radiative forcing” of 0.9 Watts per square metre but a variance of over 94 Watts per square metre is irrelevant ?

I don’t even believe in these “radiative forcing” claims.

If an “opaque” atmosphere traps infra-red this does not make it warmer – it merely slows cooling.

It takes the energy from the Sun to create warming and we know this varies far more than the deceptive propaganda spewed by climate “scientists” not only in terms of orbital parameters but also in the Sun itself.

And of course cloud cover impacts hugely in reducing incoming energy.

Personally I think if you want to see some global warming stick around long enough to when the Earth’s orbital parameters change such that the northern hemisphere is illuminated by the current southern hemisphere summer value of solar radiation of 1412 Watts per square metre instead of the current 1321 Watts per square metre. This WILL happen some time in the future as it has in the past.

Currently the 1412 Watts per square metre is predominantly impacting large areas of ocean where the surface heating is significantly lower than if it hit land masses – especially dark sand or rock surfaces.

Funny how climate “science” never discusses any of these facts and continues to claim everything was “constant” before evil mankind intervened !